U.S. military action around the world improves U.S. National Security

[Jacobtm]

Not fighting wars, ending wars, and anything like that depicts the U.S. as weak.

Everyone needs to know who's boss, then they won't mess with us.

[GMantis]

I disagree. Everyone already knows that the US is the only superpower and most have no desire to mess with them. But making everyone hate you certainly doesn't improve national security.

[© tweed]

it is generally done with the express knowledge that the opposite is true.

[Cincinnatus]

I disagree. Everyone already knows that the US is the only superpower and most have no desire to mess with them. But making everyone hate you certainly doesn't improve national security.

What good is being a superpower when a couple of rouge nukes can dismantle your entire system of security?

As for the OP, much of the recent military actions have not not improved national security IMO.  Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  Sure we ousted a dictator, but now who's to stop the power vacuum created in the region?  Who's to keep the Iranian's on edge if not Saddam, or to keep their focus off us, and our allies?  U.S. intervention has consequences, and though it sometimes may be necessity, our history is riddled with certain wars that haven't actually improved our standing much at all.

[patrick1]

Too broad , generalizing and leading of a question really. It all depends on the goals, projected outcomes and possible short and long term consequences of each individual action in planning and then in the how the action is executed.  For instance, Somalia 92-93 was a well intentioned mission to provide relief and build good will in the region. However, it was poorly planned and I think damaged our standing/security by the retreat and the perceived failure.  Other far less altruistic missions have, imo, helped improve our national security- i.e. Yemen strikes.

[Jacobtm]

Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  

We eliminated both Al Qaeda and Nuclear Bombs from Iraq.

[GMantis]

I disagree. Everyone already knows that the US is the only superpower and most have no desire to mess with them. But making everyone hate you certainly doesn't improve national security.

What good is being a superpower when a couple of rouge nukes can dismantle your entire system of security?

As for the OP, much of the recent military actions have not not improved national security IMO.  Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  Sure we ousted a dictator, but now who's to stop the power vacuum created in the region?  Who's to keep the Iranian's on edge if not Saddam, or to keep their focus off us, and our allies?  U.S. intervention has consequences, and though it sometimes may be necessity, our history is riddled with certain wars that haven't actually improved our standing much at all.

And considering that none of those of the recent wars had anything to do with that and the extremely unlikely case of such rogue nukes actually being made, the relevance of this remark eludes me.

[dead0man]

What good is being a superpower when a couple of rouge nukes can dismantle your entire system of security?

False.  I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining in your head, but it would take a lot more than 2 nukes to "dismantle our entire system of security".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  

We eliminated both Al Qaeda and Nuclear Bombs from Iraq.

After accidentally introducing the former in the first place, and in the case of the latter 'eliminating' something that didn't exist.

[patrick1]

Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  

We eliminated both Al Qaeda and Nuclear Bombs from Iraq.

After accidentally introducing the former in the first place, and in the case of the latter 'eliminating' something that didn't exist.

One would think Jacob was being sarcastic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  

We eliminated both Al Qaeda and Nuclear Bombs from Iraq.

After accidentally introducing the former in the first place, and in the case of the latter 'eliminating' something that didn't exist.

One would think Jacob was being sarcastic.

One would certainly hope so.

[patrick1]

Take Iraq for example..What did we do?  

We eliminated both Al Qaeda and Nuclear Bombs from Iraq.

After accidentally introducing the former in the first place, and in the case of the latter 'eliminating' something that didn't exist.

One would think Jacob was being sarcastic.

One would certainly hope so.

Haha, quite.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Too broad , generalizing and leading of a question really.

did you expect any thing else from Jacobtm?  he only of those angry liberal trolls along with Link and Co.

[Jacobtm]

Love how anti-interventionism is now considered ''liberal''

I'm not liberal, in the sense of a left-wing Democrat. I believe in liberty as long as it follows Jefferson's criteria that someone's expression of liberty ''neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.''

Where I believe government should step in is where others begin to pick pockets and break legs.

The military industrial complex combines pickpockets and leg breakers.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Love how anti-interventionism is now considered ''liberal''

again, you misrepresent another's comment.  I never said "anti-interventionism", rather I was saying your hackish dumb strawman presentations SUCK!

[Jacobtm]

The constant wars the U.S. has been involved in, funding, or actively executing, make us unsafe.

Large parts of the world view the U.S. as the main threat to world peace, because we have invaded oh so many countries throughout the world and funded so many repressive regimes.

You can use whatever kind of language you like to confuse the issue, but our habit of military adventurism makes the U.S. less safe.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You can use whatever kind of language you like to confuse the issue, but our habit of military adventurism makes the U.S. less safe.

It's not a question of more or less safety, pal.  It's a zero sum game: somebody lives, somebody dies. Safety itself isn't lost or gained; it's simply transferred from one perception to another.   

But, yo, we make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the gun show price of a .357.  We pick that grenade out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it.

Now, you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you Jacobtm? The right to bear arms is working in tandem with the free market.  One is action and the other is money. Together, they've become legendary.

That's right, the ole free market: the scum sucking mother whore of the entire military industrial complex. It enslaves all the masses, from the dying grandmother rotting away in some overpriced nursing home, to the unemployed brat struggling to pay off his student loans, to the little girl living near a natural gas field wondering why her bath water is flammable.  And for those who refuse to take out loans and become economic slaves, they’re forced to enlist in the military to scratch out a living working directly for The Man. 

All of this: bullets, blood, blood-money…they’re simply the product of our cannibalistic free market. And you're a part of it. Yeah, you've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you.

[Jacobtm]

Glad you're self-amusing.